- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
This seems pretty big. Bans non-compete agreements and requires employers to tell employees that they are now void. Hot damn
Good news. Seems like a no-brainer if you consider the Freedom of Association component of our 1st Amendment rights in the USA anyway.
My fiance had to move to an entirely different city in order to leave the horrible hospital she worked at but still stay in her profession because of a non-compete clause. They should have been determined unconstitutional decades ago.
She met me when she moved to the new city, so it worked out for me I guess. Less so for her!
While I disagree entirely with the concept of a non-compete, I can sort of understand the logic for employees who work with trade secrets and intellectual property. The only logic behind a non-compete for a hospital or any other service industry business is “fuck you”.
I’m glad it kinda worked out for you tho.
Part of the reason that Silicon Valley became so big instead of some place like Boston on the east coast is that California has always banned non compete clauses for workers. This allowed for more cross talk for the workers in the area and everyone was better for it.
California only banned this in the past few years.
Stealing IP has always been, and will remain, illegal though. Non competes in general were always solely for businesses and detrimental to workers.
I can sort of understand the logic for employees who work with trade secrets and intellectual property.
Aren’t NDAs made for that?
She met me when she moved to the new city, so it worked out for me I guess. Less so for her!
Do we have a !suicidebywords community somewhere yet?
This is huge! This will increase wages for both the lower and middle class, make both employees and most employers happy, and I love the provision about not being able to make it even appear that your employees are under a non-compete. Eager to see how it survives the inevitable legal onslaught from the bigger corps, but regardless this FTC has been stellar.
And the Chamber of Commerce is undoubtedly going to sue in court this week to have it overturned while telling us that it’s actually pro-employee to not be able to work elsewhere because of overreaching NCAs.
Oh wait…
Now do forced arbitration clauses?
-
Ban forced arbitration/waiver of right to class-action
-
Enforce anti-trust law
-
Enforce the UCC/doctrine of First Sale (i.e., recognize that EULAs are invalid bunk)
-
FTC working for the people, rather than using their position to audition for lucrative future private gigs. Rock on.
I mean, in fairness, non-competes fuck up other businesses, too. They’re also sort of a pain to litigate, generally speaking. So bigger firms hiring people from smaller firms do see a benefit by simply clearing the deck of annoying trivial NCs.
Less of a “working for the people” and more “performance tuning the engine of market capitalism”. Which is still more than I’ve seen from most federal agencies in a good year. So, polite golf clap
This is the same FTC that challenged further supermarket consolidation. Same FTC that is challenging big tech and is wanting AI regulation. Same FTC that Apple stopped John Stewart from interviewing. Clearly this FTC bothers enough giants. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/apple-wouldnt-let-jon-stewart-interview-ftc-chair-lina-khan-tv-host-claims/
“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed to sue the F.T.C. to block the proposal, calling it “an unlawful power grab” in a statement shortly after the vote.”
This FTC deserves solid applause because this action is huge.
This is great, they were only a way into strong arming employee retention by making them fill locked in to the company
good bot
Not a robot (or at least I don’t think I am😅)
Good boy.
Woah, is this fucking for real? Is it for all sectors? Don’t have time to read right now but this sounds like a big deal
Everyone except existing noncompetes for senior executives.
The commission’s final rule does not nullify existing noncompetes with senior executives, who are defined as those earning more than $151,164 a year and who hold a policy-making position.
Sounds… reasonable. Well I’ll be damned. That’s awesome
I am really curious as to how/if this applies to professional wrestling. I always hear lots of the wrestlers are independent contractors, but also that they have noncompetes
Noooo! But muh freedom to contract, tho! Take’n 'way muh civil liberteas!
Paywall pass
